The Impacts of Algorithmic Work Assignment on Fairness Perceptions and Productivity: Evidence from Field Experiments

References

• Akşin Z, Deo S, Jónasson JO, Ramdas K (2021) Learning from many: Partner exposure and team familiarity in fluid teams. Management Sci. 67(2):854–874.Link, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Vesterlund L (2001) Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quart. J. Econom. 116(1):293–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aronow PM (2012) A general method for detecting interference between units in randomized experiments. Sociol. Methods Res. 41(1):3–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhandari A, Scheller-Wolf A, Harchol-Balter M (2008) An exact and efficient algorithm for the constrained dynamic operator staffing problem for call centers. Management Sci. 54(2):339–353.Link, Google Scholar
• Blake PR, McAuliffe K (2011) “I had so much it didn’t seem fair”: Eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity. Cognition 120(2):215–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloom N, Liang J, Roberts J, Ying ZJ (2015) Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 130(1):165–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buell RW, Norton MI (2011) The labor illusion: How operational transparency increases perceived value. Management Sci. 57(9):1564–1579.Link, Google Scholar
• Buell RW, Kim T, Tsay C-J (2017) Creating reciprocal value through operational transparency. Management Sci. 63(6):1673–1695.Link, Google Scholar
• Buell RW, Porter E, Norton MI (2020) Surfacing the submerged state: Operational transparency increases trust in and engagement with government. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 23(4):781–802.Link, Google Scholar
• Caliskan A, Bryson JJ, Narayanan A (2017) Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science 356(6334):183–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castelo N, Bos MW, Lehmann DR (2019) Task-dependent algorithm aversion. J. Marketing Res. 56(5):809–825.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen-Charash Y, Spector PE (2001) The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 86(2):278–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Colquitt JA, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ, Porter COLH, Yee Ng K (2001) Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J. Appl. Psychol. 86(3):425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conlon DE, Porter COLH, McLean Parks J (2004) The fairness of decision rules. J. Management 30(3):329–349.Google Scholar
• Cowgill B (2018) Bias and Productivity in Humans and Algorithms: Theory and Evidence from Resume Screening (Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York).Google Scholar
• Cowgill B, Tucker CE (2019) Economics, fairness and algorithmic bias. Preprint, submitted May 11, http://conference.nber.org/confer/2019/YSAIf19/SSRN-id3361280.pdf.Google Scholar
• Dawes CT, Fowler JH, Johnson T, McElreath R, Smirnov O (2007) Egalitarian motives in humans. Nature 446(7137):794–796.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Demirdag I, Shu S (2020) Insights into the Black Box: Input Explainability of Algorithmic Decisions Drives Consumer Satisfaction in the Digital World (ACR North American Advances, Duluth, MN).Google Scholar
• Dietvorst BJ, Simmons JP, Massey C (2015) Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144(1):114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dietvorst BJ, Simmons JP, Massey C (2018) Overcoming algorithm aversion: People will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Management Sci. 64(3):1155–1170.Link, Google Scholar
• Dijkstra JJ, Liebrand WBG, Timminga E (1998) Persuasiveness of expert systems. Behav. Inf. Technol. 17(3):155–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2008) Testing theories of fairness-intentions matter. Games Econom. Behav. 62(1):287–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Goette L, Zehnder C (2009) A behavioral account of the labor market: The role of fairness concerns. Annu. Rev. Econom. 1(1):355–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gray K, Wegner DM (2012) Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125(1):125–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315(5812):619–619.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hossain, Tanjim, List JA (2012) The behavioralist visits the factory: Increasing productivity using simple framing manipulations. Management Sci. 58(12):2151–2167.Link, Google Scholar
• Huckman RS, Staats BR, Upton DM (2009) Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Sci. 55(1):85–100.Link, Google Scholar
• Ibanez MR, Staats BR (2018) Behavioral empirics and field experiments. Donohue K, Katok E, Leider S, eds. The Handbook of Behavioral Operations (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ), 121–147.Google Scholar
• Ibanez MR, Toffel MW (2020) How scheduling can bias quality assessment: Evidence from food-safety inspections. Management Sci. 66(6):2396–2416.Link, Google Scholar
• Isaac JE (2001) Performance related pay: The importance of fairness. J. Indust. Relat. 43(2):111–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karacaoglu N, Moreno A, Ozkan C (2018) Strategically giving service: The effect of real-time information on service efficiency. Preprint, submitted October 3, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3260035.Google Scholar
• Kc DS (2020) Heuristic thinking in patient care. Management Sci. 66(6):2545–2563.Link, Google Scholar
• Kleinberg J, Mullainathan S, Raghavan M (2016) Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. Preprint, submitted September 19, https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05807.Google Scholar
• Kleinberg J, Ludwig J, Mullainathan S, Rambachan A (2018) Algorithmic fairness. AEA Pap. Proc. 108:22–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lachman ME, Weaver SL (1998) The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 74(3):763.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lambrecht A, Tucker C (2019) Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of stem career ads. Management Sci. 65(7):2966–2981.Link, Google Scholar
• Leung E, Paolacci G, Puntoni S (2018) Man vs. machine: Resisting automation in identity-based consumer behavior. J. Marketing Res. 55(6):818–831.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li Y, Lu LX, Lu SF, Chen J (2021) The value of health it interoperability: Evidence from interhospital transfer of heart attack patients. Preprint, submitted January 28, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3557010.Google Scholar
• Logg JM, Minson JA, Moore DA (2019) Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 151:90–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Longoni C, Bonezzi A, Morewedge CK (2019) Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. J. Consumer Res. 46(4):629–650.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luo X, Tong S, Fang Z, Qu Z (2019) Frontiers: Machines vs. humans: The impact of artificial intelligence chatbot disclosure on customer purchases. Marketing Sci. 38(6):937–947.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Newman DT, Fast NJ, Harmon DJ (2020) When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 160:149–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S (2019) Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366(6464):447–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paulhus DL (1991) Measurement and control of response bias. Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, eds. Measures of personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (Academic Press, Cambridge, MA), 17–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH, Rubel T (2005) Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 89(6):1010.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Staats BR, Kc DS, Gino F (2018) Maintaining beliefs in the face of negative news: The moderating role of experience. Management Sci. 64(2):804–824.Link, Google Scholar
• Sun J, Zhang DJ, Hu H, Van Mieghem JA (2021) Predicting human discretion to adjust algorithmic prescription: A large-scale field experiment in warehouse operations. Management Sci.Link, Google Scholar
• Sweeney PD, McFarlin DB (1997) Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. J. Organ. Behav. 18(1):83–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tan TF, Netessine S (2019) When you work with a superman, will you also fly? An empirical study of the impact of coworkers on performance. Management Sci. 65(8):3495–3517.Link, Google Scholar
• Tyler TR (1989) The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 57(5):830.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Donselaar KH, Gaur V, Van Woensel T, Broekmeulen RACM, Fransoo JC (2010) Ordering behavior in retail stores and implications for automated replenishment. Management Sci. 56(5):766–784.Link, Google Scholar
• Wu A, Wang Y (2021) The more monitoring, the better quality? empirical evidence from the generic drug industry. Empirical evidence from the generic drug industry. Preprint, submitted January 27, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3596559.Google Scholar
• Xu Y, Zhu L (2020) Operational risk management: Team-based effort and incentive bonus. Preprint, submitted June 17, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3191887.Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Kulkarni V (2018) Automated teller machine replenishment policies with submodular costs. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 20(3):517–530.Link, Google Scholar